= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open Thread Feb 29 - March 6, 2016 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (285)
LOL
I'm not sure whether you're laughing at or with me. If the former, good; I was hoping to amuse. If the latter, perhaps consider explaining what I wrote that you find laughable?
At :-P
I find the idea of being fully committed to NOT endorsing something to be laughable.
Are you fully committed to not endorsing, say, Genghis Khan? Can you prove it? X-D
OK, so let me do something that never works :-) and explain the joke, such as it was.
Of course there is not really such a thing as being fully committed to not endorsing something; it's not the kind of thing it makes sense to be committed to. So describing someone or something as "not fully committed to endorsing X" has to be an instance of meiosis (understatement for rhetorical effect); and so it is. What I am actually suggesting is that the Golden Dawn looks like a basically-fascist party that's nostalgic for the good old days of Nazi Germany, and that no one adopts a flag like that without the deliberate intention to evoke the Nazi flag, and that what GD is actually interested in is endorsing Nazism with plausible deniability. But -- being a dry-witted English sort of chap -- I chose to express that by understating it to pretty much the greatest extent possible. It was intended to be just very slightly amusing, at least to sympathetic readers.
As I already remarked, explaining jokes never works. (Especially, I think, this sort of joke.) And I've just spent at least 30x longer explaining what I wrote as I did writing it. Oh well, never mind.
That joke would have worked better if we were not discussing whether a contemporary political movement is actually Nazi and if demands to be fully committed to not endorsing white male cis hetero partriarchy (add more words to taste) did not actually pop up outside of Monty Python sketches.
Getting back to the subject at hand, do you suggest that the Golden Dawn is actually "nostalgic for the good old days of Nazi Germany"? That strikes me as not very likely, not to mention that those good old days were very few before they became terrible, horrible, no good, very bad days.
I think maybe "Adopting this flag really doesn't seem like something a party fully committed to not endorsing Nazism would do" is British understatement for "Adopting this flag is tacitly endorsing Nazism".
I like to believe I understand British understatements. This one... didn't perform as expected :-P
That was in fact exactly my meaning.
Your opinion is noted.
Literally? Quite likely not. Keen to reproduce most of the salient features of those days if they get into power? Yeah, probably. (And I'll hazard a guess that if asked many of them would say: well, yes, Hitler did some terrible things, but at least he tried to make Germany great through purity and strength. Perhaps with a side-order of Holocaust denial.)
Depending on your pick of "salient features", this is applicable to a lot of political movements. The desire for a powerful state, national unity, a strong hand keeping miscreants in check, etc. is quite common.
Take a look at the NSDAP program -- isn't it easy to find some common ground with pretty much anyone? :-/
E.g. Bernie Sanders wants free education and hey look, it's right here, point 20: "The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. ... We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession."
Re. Bernie Sanders, he is clearly a socialist, and in some ways mildly nationalist, e.g. :
So would it be accurate to say that Sanders may be mildly national socialist, but certainly not a capitalised National Socialist?
I dunno. Find a Bernie Bro and tell him that "Sanders may be mildly national socialist". On an off chance that he knows what National Socialism is, duck X-D
Hmm, it is tempting to find a historically illiterate Bernie supporter and persuade them to describe their politics as "national socialist".
"Look, many would love to be international socialists and raise the living standard for the entire world. But clearly the US cannot afford to supply welfare, heathcare and education to all 7 billion people in the world. So, maybe one day we can have international socialism, but right now we have to be pragmatic and advocate national socialism"
Get popcorn, sit back, and watch as Bernie Bro tries to convince others to national socialism :P
Well, that's why the things that tend to get described as specifically Nazi tend not to be things like "improving the education system" or even more specifically "providing good education for gifted children from all backgrounds" (er, of course some kinds of backgrounds wouldn't have been acceptable to the Nazis) that have pretty wide support from all quarters. Just as describing someone as "very like Richard Feynman" probably doesn't mean that they had some artistic talent and enjoyed drawing.
Providing special attention to gifted children is extremely controversial. Far more resources are spent on the slow kids.
I didn't intend to imply it's uncontroversial. Only that it's widely supported by people with very varied politics.
Where by "specifically Nazi" you mean "the parts that gjm doesn't approve off".
Speak for yourself. I very much don't approve of point 20 from their program. "The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program" is a nice-ish sounding way of saying, "we will ram whatever propaganda we want down all kids' thoughts and force you to pay for it".
You keep doing this. You keep being wrong. You should stop it.
I fear you misunderstand me (and someone else seems to have misunderstood the same way, so presumably I should have been clearer). I meant not "everyone agrees with this" but "many people with a wide variety of political positions agree with this". And I didn't intend to imply that everyone in their programme other than "kill the Jews" is in that category.
"The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program" could, in isolation, mean anything from "we're going to build a lot of new schools and fund a lot of new teachers" to "we're going to close down the education system entirely" via "we're going to turn the schools into brainwashing units" and "we're going to change the schools from brainwashing units to places of actual education". In the Nazis' case, it turned out to be the brainwashing one, and no reasonable person would support that. And, lo, I think "brainwash all the children to agree with the State's position" would generally be regarded as a characteristically Nazi policy, though of course totalitarians of all stripes do that -- and this is consistent with both Lumifer's analysis (something qualifies to be thought of as characteristically Nazi iff the Nazis did it and it was really bad) and mine (something qualifies to be thought of as characteristically Nazi iff the Nazis did it and most others didn't).
Actually I think both Lumifer's analysis and mine are right; something is easier to pigeonhole as Nazi if (1) you see it done often by people who aren't Nazis and (2) you feel positively about it. I'll add another: once Nazism is associated in everyone's mind mostly with nationalism, Jew-killing, and war-making, any given other thing is going to be easier to think of as "Nazi" if it feels like it resembles those.
No, I think that's not the why. I think the actual why is because the Nazis lost the last war and so became known as the incarnation of pure evil, and everything they touched turned to pure evil, the end. In less flowery prose, "Nazi" (or neo-nazi) nowadays is just a derogatory term without much historical meaning.
I am not a fan of NSDAP and though I don't know much about Golden Dawn I doubt they are a bunch of decent fellows. If someone calls them neo-nazis, I mentally translate it to "I don't really like 'em". But if people want to insist that they are actually, literally Nazis and pine for the good old days of the Third Reich, well, at this point I feel compelled to point out that no, taking derogatories literally is rarely a good idea.
I may have used the word "fascist" or "Nazi" as derogatory terms back when I was an angry young 20 year old, but I am trying to be a little more rational now. I have been arguing that they are literally Nazis.